On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 02:29:14PM +0100, Jim Meyering wrote:
"Daniel P. Berrange" <berrange(a)redhat.com> wrote:
...
> No, they are all correct AFAIK. The *existing* code was buggy using
> the wrong macros in many places.
...
> You need to compare with the function context shown in the patch, rather
> than assume the original code was correct :-)
Yeah, "assuming" can cause trouble ;-)
It would help others down the road if there were a note
in the ChangeLog that this change set also fixes several bugs.
I comitted this in two parts, the first doing the bug fix.
Daniel
--
|: Red Hat, Engineering, London -o-
http://people.redhat.com/berrange/ :|
|:
http://libvirt.org -o-
http://virt-manager.org -o-
http://ovirt.org :|
|:
http://autobuild.org -o-
http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: GnuPG: 7D3B9505 -o- F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 :|